Author Archives: Keith Garlington

REVIEW: “Ida”

by

15

IDA POSTERWithin its compact 80 minute running time the Polish film “Ida” tells its story and creates its visual landscape with a precision and an artistry unlike any other film I’ve seen this year. Shot in striking black and white and told with an unbridled humanity, “Ida” feels as if it would be at home in the filmography of Robert Bresson. It’s a stark and penetrating story working with an aesthetic that is both grim and intensely beautiful.

In the very first shot we are introduced to 18-year old Anna who is played by the wonderful Agata Trzebuchowska. She is a novice nun who is a few days away from taking her vows. But prior to the ceremony her superior instructs her to go visit her one living relative, an aunt who Anna never knew existed. We learn that Anna has grown up in the convent and she basically has no knowledge of her past. The life that Anna does know has been defined within the walls of the convent and for her everything else is a mystery.

IDA1“Ida” is a movie about self-discovery. It’s about a young girl finding her identity and dealing with the revelations of who she is and where she comes from. Helping in her journey is the aforementioned aunt, Wanda Gruz (Agata Kulesza), a hard-drinking Communist judge who has watched her career and life suffer due to her self-destructive behavior. Kulesza is marvelous in her depiction of Aunt Wanda. There are several depressing complexities at Wanda’s core, but she also provides some surprising moments of dark humor. These are refreshing little breathers in a film otherwise full of bleak and troubling turns.

Director Pawel Pawlikowski has a meticulous eye for visual detail which is only overshadowed by the sheer beauty of so many of his shots. You could make a coffee table book full of stunning still images from this film. The story is set in early 1960s Poland and filming in black and white enhances the feelings that we are in the proper time and place. But it isn’t just the look of the film that makes it such a visual delight. It’s also about what Pawlikowski tells us with his camera. We obtain a wealth of information simply by observing and soaking in what the camera is showing.

Let me give you an example. There is a beautiful shot of Wanda and Anna in a car. The camera is in the backseat and we just see the back of their heads as they are driving down a long, straight road. Both are silent and staring straight ahead. Critic Josh Larson points out that in this film “the spiritual meets the secular” and this scene shows that even down to their appearance. Both have head coverings but for very different reasons. Both are heading down a road filled with conflicting emotion and uncertainty. This brief shot, while beautiful in its execution, also tells us a great deal about the two main characters.

IDA2

Pawlikowski also knows how to bring the most out of his two leads. Make no mistake, these are two of the best performances of the year, but the director uses their strengths to the film’s benefit. Trzebuchowska’s big, dark, expressive eyes explain to us the range of emotions her character experiences throughout the film. Likewise Kulesza’s stern, hollow stares often point to an emptiness within her that she can’t quite handle. Both actresses reveal these things to us, but Pawlikowski is a smart filmmaker and he allows them to express without holding our hands and baby feeding us everything.

There are so many other good things I could say about “Ida”. For example the clever use of sound. Background noises are so well implemented whether it be a crow cawing in the distance or the tinging of spoons hitting soup bowls. I also love the way music is employed. There is some great music in this film, but in every instance (as far as I noticed) it was being played in the movie itself either by a band or a record player. This was a cool little shift from the norm – musical scores playing over scenes.

“Ida” will never get mainstream love and that is a shame. We get annual Transformer-type movies by the dozens, each greeted at the box office with millions of dollars. Yet a film like “Ida” can go easily unnoticed. It certainly deserves attention. Pawel Pawlikowski takes a dramatic turn from his last film (“The Woman in the Fifth”) and shows exceptional craft and technique to go along with two top-notch performances and some really good material. In the end “Ida” offers more in its captivating 80 minutes than many big movies are capable of delivering with more time and a lot more money.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Only Lovers Left Alive”

by

26

LOVERS POSTER

Several years ago vampires became all the rage in modern pop culture. “Twilight” made millions from novels and movies. “True Blood” was a hugely popular television series. And while I can’t say many flattering things about the quality of these properties, fans could get their vampire entertainment fix almost anywhere. Now, as the vampire craze appears to be fading, writer and director Jim Jarmusch gives us a vampire tale that is boldly unique and intelligently metaphoric. It would also send Twilight fans running for the exits.

“Only Lovers Left Alive” could be described as a mood piece. Like other Jarmusch films, this is more centered around developing characters than developing plot and your enjoyment of the movie will probably depend on how much you enjoy being with these people. As you can guess the two main characters are vampires, but part of the film’s genius is how it uses vampire concepts while stiff-arming the usual tropes and gimmicks. In fact it seems like calling it a ‘vampire movie’ is actually doing it a huge disservice.

At the core of the film lies the love story of a centuries old vampiric couple. Adam (Tom Hiddleston) is a recluse living in an old two-story Victorian on the abandoned outskirts of Detroit. He surrounds himself with out-of-date electronic gadgets and his music. His wife Eve (Tilda Swinton) lives in Tangier, Morocco where she spends most of her time enjoying books and literature. The two are very different. Adam has grown forlorn and sour due to the current state of the world. Eve is more playful and optimistic, choosing to embrace hope and happiness. Yet despite these differences the two soulmates deeply love each other.

LOVERS1

Sensing Adam’s depression Eve travels to Detroit where the two are reunited. From there the film opens up the characters and their relationship by simply following along with them. We listen to their conversations which range from scientific theory to makes and models of classic guitars. We listen to Adam lament the death of creativity at the hands of humans (who the couple call zombies). We listen to Eve remind him of the great artists and innovators they have known through the centuries. These are fascinating individuals who have a number of fascinating discussions, but they all aim to serve the movie’s greater points.

In many ways “Only Lovers Left Alive” is an indictment of humanity, or at the very least a call for introspection. We hear how humanity’s appreciation for the arts has declined. In fact, in what may be Jarmusch’s jab at modern moviemaking, we hear Los Angeles refered to as “zombie central”. We see how humanity has destroyed what it has created as evident by the hollow and empty Detroit landscapes. We learn about humanity’s destruction of the environment particularly through a couple of references to the scarcity of clean water. Humanity has even destroyed themselves. Vampires are forced to seek alternate methods of acquiring blood because humans have poisoned their own. None of these things ever get to the point of being preachy. Instead they are thoughtful story components that are clever and thought-provoking.

LOVERS2

The film also has a smart sense of humor which shows itself most when the vampires are relating to the past. For example Eve reminding Adam of his time spent playing chess with Lord Byron or sharing creative ideas with composer Franz Schubert. Then there are several gags tied to John Hurt’s character. He plays Eve’s dear friend and fellow vampire Christopher Marlowe – yes, the 16th century playwright. Some fun is had with the conspiracy theory that he wrote many important pieces of literature under the assumed name of William Shakespeare.

It also helps that Jarmusch cast the two best possible people for the parts of Adam and Eve. Tom Hiddleston and Tilda Swinton are so intensely convincing both in their intelligent coolness and blanched physical appearances. You never doubt them as connoisseurs of fine art and music, and you never doubt their vampire status. They are two of the most compelling and strangely attractive characters I’ve seen this year. I loved spending time with them.

“Only Lovers Left Alive” can be called a vampire movie, but in reality it bucks nearly every common vampire trend. It’s a slick, stylish, and moody character piece that doesn’t shy away from asking good questions and prodding reflection. It’s also great fun watching a true independent director like Jarmusch work with top talents like Hiddleston and Swinton. This certainly won’t be up everyone’s alley, but I found it to be mesmerizing entertainment and a refreshing jolt to the 2014 movie year.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

YOUR VOICES: On the most disappointing film of 2014 (so far)

by

49

your-voices

Your Voices is a simple concept created to encourage conversation and opinions between movie lovers. It works like this: I throw out a certain topic and I’ll take time to make my case or share my opinions. Then it’s time for Your Voices. Head to the comments section and let fellow readers and moviegoers know your thoughts on the topic for that day!

Each year has its share of surprising movies, but it also brings disappointments. That’s what we are talking about today. When thinking on this topic a couple of movies instantly came to mind. Wes Anderson’s “The Grand Budapest Hotel” had many good things about it, but ultimately it fell short of Anderson’s better pictures. But I began to wonder if my reaction was heavily influenced on my expectations and deep love for the filmmaker’s other work. Therefore it’s not a film that should headline this discussion.

NOAH POSTER

Darren Aronofsky’s “Noah” is a different story. I was very hesitant about this film from the start because I never felt Aronofsky and this material went together. For me that proved to be true. Aronofsky’s agenda wasn’t to tell the biblical story that many people hold dear but to create a weird redefinition of the story and the characters involved. I guess it shouldn’t be a surprise considering the director’s perspectives and style of filmmaking. Still I found the approach to be a disappointment.

Even worse I didn’t expect the movie to be so clunky and at times downright dopey and ridiculous. There are moments in the film that are so absurd and holes in the story that no amount of style can cover. Perhaps Aronofsky doesn’t deserve all of the heat. A big part of the blame can go to the poorly conceived script which is at times mind-boggling bad. It’s really a shame because it wastes a great lead performance from Russell Crowe and leaves behind a ton of wasted potential. I wanted a lot more from this film and was really disappointed in it, but this isn’t all about me. Now it’s time for you to sound off.

YOUR VOICES: What is your biggest movie disappointment of 2014 (so far)?

Now it’s time for Your Voices. With so many 2014 movies to consider, which one did you find to be the biggest letdown? Please share Your Voices on today’s question. I’d love to hear from you in the comments section below.

REVIEW: “The Rover”

by

16

ROVER POSTER

Director David Michôd made a splash in 2010 with his critically acclaimed debut film “Animal Kingdom”. The movie would capture many people’s attention as well as numerous awards nominations. “The Rover” is Michôd’s sophomore effort and in many ways it is vastly different from his first film. It’s a much more visual experience that employs atmosphere and environment over a stricter and more focused narrative. For some people that seems to have been a turn-off. I found it to be a fresh, unsettling, and thoroughly exhilarating package.

Michôd wrote the screenplay based on a story he created with actor Joel Edgerton. The film begins with the words “Australia. 10 Years after the collapse”. Basically the world economy has crumbled and the Australian Outback has dissolved into a violent dystopia. The rule of law has disintegrated with the exception of small groups of soldiers who occasionally patrol the areas. Two very different men come together on this wasteland. Eric (Guy Pearce) is a bitter and enigmatic loner. He always seems to be laboring to keep his violent anger under control. Rey (Robert Pattinson) is a very simple and dependent American who is left behind by his brother and accomplices after a robbery goes bad.

Rover

Rey’s brother Henry is played by Scoot McNairy who always delivers in small roles like this. After leaving a wounded Rey behind Henry and his crew steal Eric’s car after wrecking theirs. We quickly understand that Eric’s car is extremely important to him, perhaps the last thing of any value that he has left. He sets out to get it back and in doing so crosses paths with Rey. The two develop a tempestuous relationship as Eric’s barely bridled violence clashes with Rey’s emotionally delicate neediness. Eric keeps Rey close as a convenience. He needs to get Rey’s brother while Rey just needs someone to cling to.

The dialogue in “The Rover” is sparse and I had to adjust to its style of storytelling. But I quickly found myself enamored with the effectiveness of Michôd’s methods. I had no trouble comprehending the desolation and rigidity of the world these characters inhabit. I had no trouble seeing the violent complexities of Eric or the fractured yet sympathetic psyche of Rey.

Rover2

We are asked to seek answers and information through our senses and I really responded to that. Michôd’s camera frames some truly captivating shots. I’m not familiar with Natasha Braier, but she was credited with the cinematography and I’ll definitely be looking for her name in the future. The two create a visually terrifying dystopian world that is both beautiful and threatening. Filming took place in the Australian desert and the cameras utilize the location to its fullest. All of this contributes to the storytelling but I do feel as if the film withholds small bits of meaningful information. I’m not saying I need or want everything spelled out for me. I think that would ruin the film. But just a touch more background would do wonders.

And how can I talk about the film and not mention the two lead performances? Readers of this blog will know that Guy Pearce is an absolute favorite of mine and his work here illustrates why. He gives one of my favorite performances of the year. He defines his character through several unconventional ways – through expressions, mannerisms, and even his bursts of violence. He hasn’t much dialogue but he doesn’t need it. He is mesmerizing. But for me the real revelation is Robert Pattinson, someone I’ve never believed in as an actor. Pattinson sheds every glimpse of his past “Twilight” pretty-boy status. It’s a very demanding role and I found myself shocked at how well he pulled it off. This could be a turning point for him.

In many ways “The Rover” reminded me of an end-of-the-world western. It quickly initiated thoughts of everything from “Mad Max” to “No Country for Old Men” to Sergio Leone’s spaghetti westerns. It’s a grubby, callous, and ferocious film that takes what looks like limitations and uses them as great strengths. This isn’t a movie that will resonate with everyone. It’s grim, violent, and hopeless. But it’s also captivating cinema that I couldn’t turn away from.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Dumb and Dumber To”

by

16

DUMB poster

I happily admit that I’m one of those guys who thought “Dumb and Dumber”, the goofball comedy from 1994, was absolutely hysterical. The film introduced us to Harry and Lloyd, two of the most good-natured and well-meaning morons ever to appear on screen. Your appreciation for these two characters and their story hinged on your tolerance for absurd and idiotic humor. When done well I love that type of comedy and “Dumb and Dumber” did it really well.

Twenty years (and one awful unclaimed prequel) later the boys are back in “Dumb and Dumber To”. The writing and directing duo of the Farrelly brothers return and, after wading through a difficult production process, the true sequel finally hit the screens. But I have to say I had mixed feelings about bringing these characters back. As much as I adored the first film I wasn’t convinced that the Farrelly brothers could recapture that same moronic magic.

DUMB1

About a third of the way through “Dumb and Dumber To” I was thinking they had recaptured that spark. The characters were twenty years older, but they felt exactly the same as when we left them. For twenty years Lloyd (Jim Carrey) has been in a mental institution as a result of his breakup with Mary Swanson. His best friend Harry (Jeff Daniels) has been faithful to visit him every week, at least until Lloyd reveals that he has been faking in order to pull the ultimate gag on his buddy. The two are reunited and Lloyd learns that Harry is sick and needs a kidney transplant. Harry finds out that years prior he had fathered a child so with Lloyd’s help he sets out to reveal himself to his daughter and possibly get her to give him a kidney as well.

Of course all of that sounds completely insane, but it starts off in perfect harmony with the stupidity of the two lead characters (and I do mean that in a very positive way). The film quickly lobs one funny gag after another, some are incredibly over-the-top, others subtle and equally funny. I was laughing a lot. Everything was clicking for me early on and I was reminded of why I loved the original movie.

DUMB AND DUMBER TO, from left: Jim Carrey, Rob Riggle, Jeff Daniels, 2014. ph: Hopper

But then this film runs into a wall. The humor, which energized the first part of the movie, flatlines and my laughter all but stopped. It seemed as if the Farrelly’s ran out of good gags and were straining to fill out their running time. It loses its cleverness, its charm, and its overall likability. Carrey and Daniels still go for it, but the material devolves into a desperate and dull mess. It becomes cruder and ruder and the laughs become more and more scarce. Then there is the end which is more or less nonsense.

I had high hopes for this film, but they were laced with an understandable hesitation. Sometimes movies like the first film should just be left alone. Today’s comedies seem locked into a single, repeated formula that I normally don’t find funny or entertaining. I loved the thought of a film bringing back that idiotic humor that we haven’t seen in a while. For a bit “Dumb and Dumber To” gives us that. But sadly it never maintains it and the unfunny toilet humor and gross out gags take over. It ends up being yet another Hollywood sequel that didn’t really need to happen.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

5 Phenomenal Movies from 1988

by

49

movie_theatre - Phenom 5

As I’ve made this journey through the movie landscape of the 1980s, no year has had quite the variety of 1988. That made selecting just five phenomenal movies from 1988 pretty difficult. In some ways this list reflects the weirdness of that year which I guess is a good thing. There were several great films and several not so great but guilty pleasure movies. Considering that, I wouldn’t call this the definitive list. But there is no denying that these five films from 1988 are simply phenomenal!

#5 – “Beetlejuice”

BEETLEJUICE

When Tim Burton was on his game he could make some crazy and entertaining movies. And that is coming from someone who isn’t his biggest fan. “Beetlejuice” is one of those films. You could call the movie fantasy, horror, or comedy and all accurately fit. The wacky effects and the great cast make the film so insanely unique. But it’s Michael Keeton who makes the movie an 80’s classic. Keeton lets loose with an assortment of verbal and physical comedy that still cracks me up today. I’ve always been a fan of his and often point back to this movie to show why. “Beetlejuice” is a hoot.

#4 – “Coming to America”

COMING TO AMERICA

Remember back when Eddie Murphy was funny. After Saturday Night Live Murphy made his name in movies like “48 HRS” and “Beverly Hills Cop”. But one of my favorites from Eddie Murphy was “Coming to America”. It’s the story of a wealthy African prince who comes to America to find his true love. And where would a prince go to find his soulmate? Well Queens, New York of course. Murphy and co-star Arsenio Hall play a number of different characters in the film, all of them hilarious. There are so many funny moments and hysterical bits of satire. If only he still made movies like this.

#3 – “Rain Man”

RAIN MAN

Talk about a movie that hit the world by storm. “Rain Main” was a huge box office success featuring two of Hollywood’s biggest stars, Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman. But it didn’t just rake in a ton of cash in movie theaters around the globe. Critics universally loved it and it would go on to win four Oscars including Best Picture and Best Actor for Hoffman. The story of a self-absorbed yuppie (Cruise) who discovers he has an autistic brother (Hoffman) really connected. The two polar opposites clash but the story unfolds in a way that is both heartwarming and also informative.

#2 – “The Naked Gun”

NAKED GUN

Please don’t totally dismiss this list after seeing this selection, but I wouldn’t be an honest blogger if I didn’t include what I think is one of the funniest movies of the 1980s. “The Naked Gun” was based on the short-lived television series “Police Squad”. In both Leslie Nielsen plays Police Squad Lieutenant Frank Drebin, a moron with a heart of gold. This is close to the top of absurd comedies with more jokes and gags than serious lines. A great supporting cast including George Kennedy, Ricardo Montalban, Priscilla Presley, and O.J. Simpson all jump headfirst into this pond of hilarious nonsense. I love it.

#1 – “Die Hard”

Die Hard

As I look back over all of my Phenomenal 5 lists I’m surprised at how many times “Die Hard” has made its way onto them. Well here it is again and deservedly so. “Die Hard” came out during what could be called the action movie era. Bigger than life characters were everywhere in the movies of Stallone and Schwarzenegger. Then along comes Bruce Willis playing John McClane, an imperfect cop who felt refreshingly different than the Rambos of cinema. The film also created one of the most exciting scenarios, a terrorist overtaking of a skyscraper. Such a great movie filled with great action and great characters. It had to be tops on this list.

There are my picks. See something I got wrong? There are so many other deserving movies from 1988. Which ones would make your list? Please take time to let me know in the comments section below.